DOCSLIB.ORG

The Case for Icebreakers

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Case for Icebreakers Master thesis in Sustainable Development 283 Examensarbete i Hållbar utveckling The Case For Icebreakers Griffith Couser DEPARTMENT OF EARTH SCIENCES INSTITUTIONEN FÖR Master thesis in Sustainable Development 283 Examensarbete i Hållbar utveckling The Case For Icebreakers Griffith Couser Supervisor: Ashok Swain Evaluator: Eva Friman Copyright © Griffith Couser and the Department of Earth Sciences, Uppsala University Published at Department of Earth Sciences, Uppsala University (www.geo.uu.se), Uppsala, 2016 Content: 1 Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………………1 1.1 Structure ………………………………………………………………………………………2 2 Background & Theory …..…...……………………………………………………………..…4 2.1 Theory ………………………………………………………………………………………...4 2.1.1 Problem-Solving Capacity ………………………………………………………………….4 2.1.2 Environmental Security …………………………………………………………………….6 2.1.3 Food Security ……………………………………………………………………………….9 2.2 Geography …………………………...………………………………………………………12 2.2.1 Sea Ice ……………………………………………………………………………………..12 2.2.2 Shipping …………………………………………………………………………………...13 2.3 Icebreakers …………………………………………………………………………………..15 2.4 The Arctic Council …………………………………………………………………………..16 2.4.1 The United States Chairmanship Agenda ……………………………………………........17 2.5 National Interest …………………………………………………………………………..…18 2.5.1 The United States ……………………………………………………………………….…18 2.5.2 The Russian Federation ……………………………………………………………………19 2.5.3 Asia ………………………………………………………………………………………..20 2.5.4 Canada ……………………………………………………………………………………..20 2.6 Alaska ……………………………………………………………………………………….21 2.7 Indigenous …………………………………………………………………………………...23 2.8 The United States Coast Guard ……………………………………………………………...23 3 Methods………………………………………………………………………………….…….28 3.1 Secondary Research …………………………………………………………………………28 3.2 Primary Research ……………………………………………………………………………29 i 4 Analysis & Discussion……………………………………………………………………...…30 4.1 Indigenous ………………………………………………………………………...…………31 4.2 Oil ………………………………………………………………………………………...…34 4.3 Domestic Policy and Development ……………………………………………………….…36 4.4 The USCG and Icebreakers …………………………………………………………………37 4.5 Shipping …………………………………………………………………………………..…40 4.6 International Cooperation …………………………………………………………………...41 4.7 International Law ……………………………………………………………………………43 4.8 The United States Arctic Council Chairmanship ……………………………………………44 4.9 Analysis………………………………………………………………………...…………….46 4.9.1 Local……………………………………………………………………………………….46 4.9.2 National………………………………………………………………….…………………46 4.9.3 International………………………………………………………………..………………47 5 Conclusion & Recommendations ……………..…………………………………………….49 6 Acknowledgements …………………………………………………………………………..51 7 References …………………………………………………………………………………….52 8 Appendices………………………………………………….……………………….………...59 ii List of Figures Figure 1 – Table Detailing the Structure of Institutional Problem-Solving Theory…...………… 5 Figure 2 – Chart Detailing Environmental Security Theory………………………………...…… 8 Figure 3 – Map of the Arctic Region………………………...…………………………………. 11 Figure 4 – Map of Arctic Alaska….……………………………………………………………. 23 Figure 5 – USCG Acquisitions Budget and Projections FY 2013-2016….……………………. 28 Figure 6 – Delimitations of Sovereignty Determined by UNCLOS……………………………. 43 Figure 7 – USCG Cutters Polar Star, Polar Sea, and Healy ……………………...………….… 59 Figure 8 – Comparison of the Polar Star and the 50 Years of Victory…………………….…… 59 Figure 9 – USCG Appropriations Budget FY2015 Breakdown………………………………... 60 Figure 10 – The Donut Hole …………………………………………………………………… 61 Figure 11 – Search and Rescue Treaty Delimitations …………………………………………. 62 Figure 12 – Major Icebreakers of the World ……………………………...…………………… 63 iii Glossary AAPC – Alaskan Arctic Policy Commission AC – Arctic Council AES – Arctic Encounter Symposium ANWR – Alaska National Wildlife Refuge ARC – Arctic Research Commission BOEM – Bureau of Ocean Energy Management DHS – United States Department of Homeland Security EEZ – Exclusive Economic Zone FY – Fiscal Year ISA – International Seabed Authority ICC – Inuit Circumpolar Council IES – Institute for Environmental Security NSAR – United States National Strategy for the Arctic Region NWP – Northwest Passage USA – United States of America USCG – United States Coast Guard UNCLOS – United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea VDC – Valdai Discussion Club iv The Case For Icebreakers GRIFFITH COUSER Couser, G., 2015. The Case For Icebreakers. Masters Thesis in Sustainable Development at Uppsala University, No.XX, XXpp, 30ECTS/hp. Abstract: This thesis assesses the potential success of the United States’ newly assumed role as chairman of the Arctic Council in light of its own record of development in Alaska, its only Arctic territory. Using primary and secondary qualitative research, perspectives from multiple stakeholders are analyzed to assess the United States’ current capabilities in the Arctic versus its rhetoric and responsibilities. To gauge this more effectively, the theory of problem-solving capacity is used to analyze the United States’ potential capacity in the Arctic Council, while the theory of environmental security is used to analyze the United States’ level of investment and commitment to Alaska. With development in Alaska minimal at best and local communities at risk from environmental impacts, the ideal tool for addressing these deficiencies is identified to be icebreakers operated by the United States Coast Guard. Impediments to acquiring sufficient icebreaking capacity are explored, with the conclusion that if the United States is to take effective action on the Arctic stage, investment in icebreakers and therefore the environment and inhabitants of the Arctic is necessary. Not doing so reveals the USA’s agenda to be empty rhetoric and consequently this lost opportunity for leadership may lead to catastrophic results for the region. Keywords: Sustainable Development, Arctic Council, Alaska, Icebreakers, Environmental Security, Inuit Griffith Couser, Department of Earth Sciences, Uppsala University, Villavägen 16, SE- 752 36 Uppsala, Sweden v The Case For Icebreakers GRIFFITH COUSER Couser, G., 2015. The Case For Icebreakers. Masters Thesis in Sustainable Development at Uppsala University, No.XX, XXpp, 30ECTS/hp. Popular Summary: The Arctic Council is the premier intergovernmental forum on Arctic affairs, and the United States has recently assumed chairmanship of the organization, putting forth an ambitious agenda based on cooperation, stewardship, community and commercial development, and climate change impact research. At the same time, the state of development in Alaska, the USA’s only Arctic territory, is dismal. Coastal infrastructure is lacking, as is community development, and the USA’s entire capacity to operate in the area is hampered by a small and aging icebreaker fleet. The question posed by this thesis is whether the USA can assume an effective leadership role while its own Arctic territory suffers from so much neglect. This thesis uses the theory of institutional problem-solving capacity to analyze the USA’s leadership potential in the AC, and the theory of environmental security to effectively gauge the level of development in Alaska. It uses primary and secondary sources to assess the priorities of various stakeholders in the Alaskan Arctic, and arrives at the conclusion that to truly take responsibility and lead in the region at large, the United States must begin by investing seriously in its icebreaker program, which is the single most powerful tool for enhancing its presence, development and environmental security in the area. Without doing so, the USA’s Arctic agenda is empty rhetoric, a lost opportunity, and a potential disaster for the region. Keywords: Sustainable Development, Arctic Council, Alaska, Icebreakers, Environmental Security, Inuit Griffith Couser, Department of Earth Sciences, Uppsala University, Villavägen 16, SE- 752 36 Uppsala, Sweden vi 1. Introduction “The decisions that we make today and in the next two years, the actions that we come together to take, will determine the future of this region for generations to come. So we have to be ambitious, we have to honor the responsibility that each of our nations has for the Arctic, we have to make sure the opportunities that we explore help to preserve the sustainability and the vitality of this region and by extension the rest of the world. And we all know the clock is ticking and we actually don’t have a lot of time to waste.” – Secretary of State John Kerry, Arctic Council Ministerial Meeting, Iqaluit, April 28, 2015. That the Arctic is melting is a foregone conclusion. Sea ice levels reached their lowest point on record in March 2015, following the last decade’s trend of steady decline. This melting is instigating an environmental state change in the region for which neither the inhabitants nor the nations that administer the area are completely prepared. As the environment shifts radically with the loss of both sea ice and permafrost, the effects will be difficult to deal with for those who have adapted to the ice and need it for their livelihood – whether this be the subsistence hunters among the Inuit, or the bearded seals which use the ice for resting and giving birth. However, it is important not to label this melting as strictly negative. The melting of the ice opens the region to a host of newcomers. Southern species of fish are moving further north to feed and, following them, commercial fishermen are finding a bounty in the previously hostile and dangerous waters. So, too, are energy companies and, as businesses from the south move northwards,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • District Court Pleadings Caption
    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF SEATTLE 8 In the Matter of the Appeal of: ) Hearing Examiner File No. S-15-001 9 ) (DPD Project No. 3020324) FOSS MARITIME COMPANY ) 10 ) from an Interpretation by the Director, Department ) 11 of Planning and Development. ) ) 12 _________________________________________ ) ) Hearing Examiner File No. S-15-002 13 In the Matter of the Appeal of the: ) (DPD Project No. 3020324) ) 14 PORT OF SEATTLE, ) ) PUGET SOUNDKEEPER’S 15 from Interpretation No. 15-001 of the Director of ) THIRD UPDATED EXHIBIT the Department of Planning and Development. ) LIST AND WITNESS LIST 16 ) ) 17 18 Puget Soundkeeper Alliance, Seattle Audubon Society, Sierra Club, and Washington 19 Environmental Council (collectively “Soundkeeper”) respectfully submit this third updated list 20 of exhibits and witnesses. Soundkeeper will provide two hard copies of the exhibits to the 21 Hearing Examiner for the Examiner and the Witness binders. Soundkeeper is submitting these 22 exhibits to address objections and issues that have been raised in the direct testimony and cross- 23 examination of some of the Port’s witnesses. 24 25 Earthjustice SOUNDKEEPER’S THIRD UPDATED 705 Second Ave., Suite 203 EXHIBIT LIST AND WITNESS LIST - 1 - Seattle, WA 98104-1711 26 (206) 343-7340 27 1 Additionally, Soundkeeper originally submitted excerpts of documents as PSA Exs. 13- 2 15 and 17-18; Foss objected to the excerpted nature of the documents at hearing. Soundkeeper 3 has provided the complete documents to counsel and has asked whether they would be willing to 4 stipulate to submitting only the excerpts since the remainders of each of the documents have no 5 relevance to this proceeding.
    [Show full text]
  • Kulluk Brief
    Kulluk Grounding Captain Paul Mehler III Commander, United States Coast Guard Sector Anchorage “…the inadequate assessment and management of risks by the parties involved was the most significant causal factor of the mishap.” -- Rear Admiral Servideo Assistant Commandant for Prevention Policy United States Coast Guard 21 December 2012 • Aiviq and Kulluk depart Dutch Harbor, Alaska Kulluk Flag: Republic of the Marshall Islands Service: Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit (MODU) Official Number: 802785 Year Built: 1979 Builder: Mitsui Gross Tonnage, Inter. Tonnage Certificate: 27, 968 Length (ft): 265.7 Breadth: Vessel is conical in shape Draft: 10.7 meters at time of sailing Propulsion: None Manning Under Tow: 18 Owner: Shell Offshore, Inc. Operator: Noble Drilling (US) LLC. Aiviq Flag: United States Service: Offshore Supply Vessel Official Number: 1237683 Year Built: 2012 Builder: North American Shipbuilding LLC Gross Tonnage ITC: 12,892 Length (ft): 324.5 Breadth (ft): 80 Draft (ft): 28 Propulsion: (4) Caterpillar Diesel Engines (1) 2,800 hp Azimuth Thruster Tunnel thrusters, (2) fore and (2) aft Total Shaft Horsepower: 21,776 Bollard Pull (Tons): 208 Crew: 18 Crew, plus Mooring Crew & Medic Owner: Offshore Service Vessels, Inc. Operator: Galliano Marine Services, LLC. 25 December 2012 • Weather deteriorates. PKZ132-260300- SHUYAK ISLAND TO SITKINAK 400 AM AKST TUE DEC 25 2012 ...GALE WARNING TONIGHT AND WEDNESDAY... .TODAY...W WIND 15 KT BECOMING S IN THE AFTERNOON. SEAS 11 FT. .TONIGHT...SE WIND 20 KT BECOMING E 35 KT AFTER MIDNIGHT. SEAS 12 FT. RAIN. .WED...SE WIND 40 KT. SEAS 15 FT. RAIN AND SNOW. .WED NIGHT...SE WIND 30 KT.
    [Show full text]
  • Ice Management Operations and Protocol
    SHELL OFFSHORE INC. 3601 C Street, Suite 1000 Anchorage, AK 99503 DRILLING ICE MANAGEMENT PLAN Chukchi Sea, Alaska Submitted to: U. S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement Alaska Outer Continental Shelf Region Submitted by: Shell Gulf of Mexico Inc. Drilling Ice Management Plan Chukchi Sea, Alaska DRILLING ICE MANAGEMENT PLAN . e s Approval: u Approved for the Alaska Asset r e t Shell Exploration & Production Company Approved Date f a ) VP Wells Arctic & Industry Regulatory Affairs Signature on file 7/9/2014 E CYCL Effective This document is effective per the latest approval date above. E R ( y o Expires In force until revised and/or superseded. r t s e D Custodian Alaska Marine Manager . D E LL Author Ice Management Lead (July, 2014 Revision) O R ONT Reviewers Principal Arctic Marine Facilities Advisor C UN VP Alaska BOM VP Arctic HSSE e r a VP Alaska Operations t Alaska Maritime Assurance Manager n Alaska Wells Operations Manager e m Arctic Execution Manager u Offshore Regulatory Team Lead c do s i h t f o s e i cop d e t n i r P Shell Gulf of Mexico Inc. 2 July, 2014 Drilling Ice Management Plan Chukchi Sea, Alaska Topic Define the method and system to ensure the safe departure of the drilling unit from the well site due to incursion of hazardous sea ice. Purpose/Scope The purpose of this Drilling Ice Management Plan is to provide a consistent, safe method for full compliance with the Alaska Venture . e operating / permitting requirements with regard to the Critical Operation s u Curtailment Plan which encompasses the Drilling Ice Management Plan.
    [Show full text]
  • Shell’S 2012 Alaska Offshore Oil and Gas Exploration Program March 8, 2013
    REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR REVIEW OF SHELL’S 2012 ALASKA OFFSHORE OIL AND GAS EXPLORATION PROGRAM MARCH 8, 2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction 1 II. Findings and Recommendations 2 A. Recommended Undertakings by Shell 5 B. Government Oversight 5 III. Background 7 A. History of Leasing and Exploration in the Arctic OCS 8 1. The Beaufort Sea OCS Planning Area 9 2. The Chukchi Sea OCS Planning Area 9 B. Background Regarding Shell’s Arctic Exploration Program 10 1. The Beaufort Sea Program 10 2. The Chukchi Sea Program 10 C. Overview of Federal Regulatory Approvals for the 2012 Season 11 1. The Exploration Plans 11 2. Air Permits 12 3. Clean Water Permits 13 4. Marine Mammal Authorizations 14 5. Oil Spill Response 14 6. Maritime Vessel Requirements 15 7. State and Federal Consultations 15 8. Drilling Permits 16 IV. Evaluation of Shell’s 2012 Alaska Offshore Exploration Program 16 A. The Arctic Containment System 17 1. The Arctic Challenger 18 2. The Containment Dome 19 B. Rig Preparations and Fleet Mobilization 20 C. Shell’s Drilling Operations in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas 21 1. Operational Logistics 21 2. Timing of Drilling Operations 22 3. Conflict Avoidance and Coordination with Local Communities 24 4. Federal Oversight During the Drilling Season 24 5. Compliance with Air Permits 25 6. Environmental Monitoring and Collection of Scientific Data 27 D. Demobilization and Post-Drilling Season Problems with Both Rigs 27 1. Ice Forecasting at the End of the Season 27 2. Demobilization 28 3. Inspection of the Noble Discoverer 29 4.
    [Show full text]
  • Ecosystem Overview and Assessment Report Canadian Technical Report
    Beaufort Sea Large Ocean Management Area: Ecosystem Overview and Assessment Report D. Cobb, H. Fast, M.H. Papst, D. Rosenberg, R. Rutherford, and J.E. Sareault Central and Arctic Region Freshwater Institute 501 University Crescent Winnipeg, Manitoba R3T 2N6 2008 Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 2780 Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences Technical reports contain scientific and technical information that contributes to existing knowledge but which is not normally appropriate for primary literature. Technical reports are directed primarily toward a worldwide audience and have an international distribution. No restriction is placed on subject matter and the series reflects the broad interests and policies of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, namely, fisheries and aquatic sciences. Technical reports may be cited as full publications. The correct citation appears above the abstract of each report. Each report is abstracted in the data base Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts . Technical reports are produced regionally but are numbered nationally. Requests for individual reports will be filled by the issuing establishment listed on the front cover and title page. Numbers 1-456 in this series were issued as Technical Reports of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada. Numbers 457-714 were issued as Department of the Environment, Fisheries and Marine Service, Research and Development Directorate Technical Reports. Numbers 715-924 were issued as Department of Fisheries and Environment, Fisheries and Marine Service Technical Reports. The current series name was changed with report number 925. Rapport technique canadien des Sciences halieutiques et aquatiques Les rapports techniques contiennent des renseignements scientifiques et techniques qui constituent une contribution aux connaissances actuelles, mais qui ne sont pas normalement appropriés pour la publication dans un journal scientifique.
    [Show full text]
  • Shell Exploration & Production
    Shell Exploration & Production Shell May 1, 2014 3601 C Street, Suite 1000 Anchorage, AK 99503 United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Tel. (907) 646-7112 Attn: David Johnston Email [email protected] Regional Supervisor Leasing and Plans Internet http://www.Shell.com/ 3801 Centerpoint Drive, Suite 500 Anchorage, Alaska 99503-5823 Re: Requests for Additional Information – Chukchi Sea Exploration Plan, Revision 2 Dear Mr. Johnston: Shell Gulf of Mexico Inc. (Shell) provides the attached information in response to the requests for additional information from the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management dated January 14, 2014 on the above-referenced document. Please contact me at (907) 646-7112 or via e-mail at [email protected] for further information. Thank you, Susan Childs Alaska Venture Support Integrator, Manager Attachments: Bureau of Ocean Energy Management January 14, 2014 RFAI Responses; Shell Gulf of Mexico Inc. Chukchi Sea Exploration Plan, Revision 2 Shell Exploration & Production Table of Contents OPERATIONAL........................................................................................................................................... 1 RFAI No. 1 (Section 1.0, Page 1-1, Paragraph 1) ......................................................................................... 1 RFAI No. 2 (Section 1.0) .............................................................................................................................. 2 RFAI No. 3 (Section 1.0, Page 1-1) .............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Hazards of Arctic Drilling
    Our Ocean Backyard –– Santa Cruz Sentinel columns by Gary Griggs, Director, Institute of Marine Sciences, UC Santa Cruz. #123 January 12, 2013 The Hazards of Arctic Drilling The Shell drilling vessel Kulluk before washing up on shore. The Kulluk, a Royal Dutch Shell drilling barge, was pulled off the coastline of a remote Aleutian island on January 6 and towed to a protected bay on Kodiak Island where it will be thoroughly inspected before its next transit. The drilling vessel ran aground on New Year’s Eve in the midst of high seas while being towed to Seattle for maintenance and upgrades. The rig had been drilling exploratory wells in Arctic waters as part of Shell’s $5 billion program to rejuvenate its offshore Arctic oil efforts that have been inactive for about 20 years. The melting of increasing amounts of ice in the Arctic has allowed greater access to drilling vessels. The Kulluk is the second Shell drilling vessel to end up on the Alaskan shoreline in less than six month. It’s an odd shaped circular barge, 266 feet in diameter with a 160-foot high derrick in its middle and a funnel-shaped, reinforced steel hull that allows it to operate in ice. A 360-foot ice-breaking tug, the Aiviq, was towing the drilling barge. On December 27, during 35-foot seas and 60 miles an hour winds, certainly rough but not unusual Aleutian weather, the main towline to the Kulluk broke. Hours later, while trying to connect to an emergency cable, the huge tug lost power to all four of its engines.
    [Show full text]
  • Search and Rescue in the Arctic: Is the U.S. Prepared?
    Dissertation Search and Rescue in the Arctic Is the U.S. Prepared? Timothy William James Smith This document was submitted as a dissertation in September 2016 in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the doctoral degree in public policy analysis at the Pardee RAND Graduate School. The faculty committee that supervised and approved the dissertation consisted of Abbie Tingstad (Chair), Brien Alkire, and Scott Stephenson. PARDEE RAND GRADUATE SCHOOL For more information on this publication, visit http://www.rand.org/pubs/rgs_dissertations/RGSD382.html Published by the RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif. © Copyright 2017 RAND Corporation R® is a registered trademark Limited Print and Electronic Distribution Rights This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited. Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.html. The RAND Corporation is a research organization that develops solutions to public policy challenges to help make communities throughout the world safer and more secure, healthier and more prosperous. RAND is nonprofit, nonpartisan, and committed to the public interest. RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors. Support RAND Make a tax-deductible charitable contribution at www.rand.org/giving/contribute www.rand.org Table of Contents Acknowledgments..........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Circumpolar Military Facilities of the Arctic Five
    CIRCUMPOLAR MILITARY FACILITIES OF THE ARCTIC FIVE Ernie Regehr, O.C. Senior Fellow in Arctic Security and Defence The Simons Foundation and Michelle Jackett, M.A. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Circumpolar Military Facilities of the Arctic Five – last updated: September 2017 Ernie Regehr, O.C., and Michelle Jackett, M.A. Circumpolar Military Facilities of the Arctic Five Introduction This compilation of current military facilities in the circumpolar region1 continues to be offered as an aid to addressing a key question posed by the Canadian Senate more than five years ago: “Is the [Arctic] region again becoming militarized?”2 If anything, that question has become more interesting and relevant in the intervening years, with commentators divided on the meaning of the demonstrably accelerated military developments in the Arctic – some arguing that they are primarily a reflection of increasing military responsibilities in aiding civil authorities in surveillance and search and rescue, some noting that Russia’s increasing military presence is consistent with its need to respond to increased risks of things like illegal resource extraction, terrorism, and disasters along its frontier and the northern sea route, and others warning that the Arctic could indeed be headed once again for direct strategic confrontation.3 While a simple listing of military bases, facilities, and equipment, either
    [Show full text]
  • The Arctic Policies of Canada and the United States 3 Ing Administration of President Barack Obama and Is Considered Largely Bipartisan
    SIPRI Insights on Peace and Security No. 2012/1July 2012 THE ARCTIC POLICIES OF SUMMARY w The melting polar ice creates CANADA AND THE UNITED a fundamentally new geopolitical situation in the STATES: DOMESTIC MOTIVES Arctic that warrants attention at both national and AND INTERNATIONAL international levels. While the United States is just waking up to these changes, Canada has CONTEXT made the Arctic a top political priority. kristofer bergh Both countries need to pay attention to the challenges in the Arctic but should also be wary of how their domestic I. Introduction posturing in the region is affecting their international The Arctic ice is melting. If current trends continue, there will be dramatic relations, including with each changes in the region, with far-reaching implications. At the same time, the other. The abilities of Canada receding ice opens the region to economic development, including through and the USA to pursue their the exploitation of previously inaccessible hydrocarbons and minerals. In interests in the region will rely on them cooperating closely, September 2011, both the Northern Sea Route (along Russia’s north coast, not least because from 2013 formerly known as the Northeast Passage) and the Northwest Passage they will hold successive (along the northern coasts of Alaska and Canada) were open for some time, chairmanships of the Arctic potentially creating shorter shipping routes between Asia, Europe and Council. 1 North America. Increased human activity in the sparsely populated and Canadian–US relations will inhospit able Arctic requires new initiatives to achieve safety and security thus be an important factor in for the region’s environment and its inhabitants and visitors.
    [Show full text]
  • Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization
    Coast Guard Polar Security Cutter (Polar Icebreaker) Program: Background and Issues for Congress Updated September 15, 2021 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov RL34391 Coast Guard Polar Security Cutter (Polar Icebreaker) Program Summary The Coast Guard Polar Security Cutter (PSC) program is a program to acquire three new PSCs (i.e., heavy polar icebreakers), to be followed years from now by the acquisition of up to three new Arctic Security Cutters (ASCs) (i.e., medium polar icebreakers). The PSC program has received a total of $1,754.6 million (i.e., about $1.8 billion) in procurement funding through FY2021, including $300 million that was provided through the Navy’s shipbuilding account in FY2017 and FY2018. With the funding the program has received through FY2021, the first two PSCs are now fully funded. The Coast Guard’s proposed FY2022 budget requests $170.0 million in procurement funding for the PSC program, which would be used for, among other things, procuring long leadtime materials (LLTM) for the third PSC. The Navy and Coast Guard in 2020 estimated the total procurement costs of the PSCs in then- year dollars as $1,038 million (i.e., about $1.0 billion) for the first ship, $794 million for the second ship, and $841 million for the third ship, for a combined estimated cost of $2,673 million (i.e., about $2.7 billion). Within those figures, the shipbuilder’s portion of the total procurement cost is $746 million for the first ship, $544 million for the second ship, and $535 million for the third ship, for a combined estimated shipbuilder’s cost of $1,825 million (i.e., about $1.8 billion).
    [Show full text]
  • Coast Guard Arctic Implementation Capabilities
    COAST GUARD ARCTIC IMPLEMENTATION CAPABILITIES (114–49) HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON COAST GUARD AND MARITIME TRANSPORTATION OF THE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION JULY 12, 2016 Printed for the use of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure ( Available online at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/ committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 20–694 PDF WASHINGTON : 2017 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001 VerDate Aug 31 2005 15:29 Feb 22, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 P:\HEARINGS\114\CG&JOI~1\7-12-1~1\20694.TXT JEAN COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman DON YOUNG, Alaska PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee, ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of Vice Chair Columbia JOHN L. MICA, Florida JERROLD NADLER, New York FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey CORRINE BROWN, Florida SAM GRAVES, Missouri EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland DUNCAN HUNTER, California RICK LARSEN, Washington ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois BOB GIBBS, Ohio STEVE COHEN, Tennessee RICHARD L. HANNA, New York ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland JEFF DENHAM, California JOHN GARAMENDI, California REID J.
    [Show full text]